Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 13.04.2014 at about 8.00 p.m., at Musalmari village, when the victim girl has gone to attend the nature call, accused No.1 and 22, with common intention, have kidnapped her and took her along with them and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec. 363 R/w Sec. 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, after kidnapping the victim girl from the above said place, accused No.1 and 2 took the victim girl to the house of accused No.3 and 4 and thereafter took her to the house of to 5, accused N.1 and 2 have wrongfully confined the victim girl in their house and there after accused No.2 took the victim girl to Goa and wrongfully confined her in a shed at Goa and thereby the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable under Sec. 344 R/w Sec. 34 of IPC?

Further, PW-13 had also collected the certificate from the school of the victim, which is at Ex.P28, property extracts of the house of the accused No. 5 as per Ex-P26, 27 before he filed the chargesheet. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS:

34. The State contends that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 forcibly took PW1 from the lawful custody of PW3 her father, on the night of 13-11-2014 and therefore, they have committed the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. It is contended that PW1 was a minor and therefore, the provisions of the POCSO Act are attracted. It is contended that the accused Nos. 3,4 and 5 assisted the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in wrongfully confining PW1 for more than ten days and therefore, an offence under Section 344 of IPC is committed by them. The Special Court has framed charge for the offences under Sections 363, 376 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (POA) Act, as against accused Nos. 1 and 2. It has framed charges for the offence under Section 344 of IPC as against all the accused Nos. 1 to 5. Therefore, our endeavor would be to examine whether these charges have been proved by the prosecution or not.

48. It is also to be noted that FSL report which is at Ex.P18 show that the rug which was seized from the house of accused No.5 did not contain any incriminating stains. It is difficult to accept that the there might be stains on the rug even after 20 days and the rug was not washed and remained as it is, unused. Hence, we are of the considered view that the offence under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act is established as against the accused No. 1.

49. The prosecution alleges that there was wrongful confinement for more than ten days and therefore, the offence under Section 344 of IPC was committed by the accused. The wrongful confinement of more than ten days can only be attributed to accused No. 1 and deceased accused No.2. The accused No.1 had accompanied PW 1 and the accused No. 2 to the railway station at Belagavi and then parted the ways. Though PW13 has not spoken as how he came to know of the place of residence of the victim and the accused No. 1 at Goa, such tracing of the victim was only after the arrest of accused No. 1. Therefore, it can easily be inferred that the accused No.1 was in the knowledge of the acts done by the accused No. 2. Hence, the offence under Section 344 of IPC is established as against the accused No. 1.

(iii) The appeal against accused No.2 abates.
(iv) The accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 344, 363, 376 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act.
(v) The acquittal of accused No. 1 for the offence under Sec. 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (POA) Act and the acquittal of accused Nos. 3 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 344, 363, 376 and under Sections 3 and 4 of POCSO Act and under Sections 3(2)(v) of SC and ST (POA) Act, are confirmed.